Against all the odds, Andrea
Rossi's E-Cat cold fusion power plant passed its biggest test
yesterday, producing an average of 470 kilowatts for more than five
hours. (A technical glitch prevented it from achieving a megawatt
as originally planned). The demonstration was monitored closely by
engineers from Rossi's mysterious US customer, which was evidently
satisfied and paid up.

The energy was output in the form of heat, measured by the
quantity of water boiled off. The results are reported in NyTeknik and Pure Energy Systems News, who both had reporters present
for the test. Associated Press also sent a correspondent
who should be filing a story in the next few days (one suspects his
editors might have some questions).

But this does not mean we can crack open the champagne and
celebrate the end of fossil fuels quite yet. Skeptics have plenty
of grounds to doubt whether the new test really takes us any
further forwards.

For a start, the US customer remains anonymous. In other words,
a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which
cannot be checked.

Secondly, observers apart from the customer were only allowed to
view the test for a few minutes at a time and during the entire
test the E-Cat remained connected to a power supply by a cable. The
external power was supposedly turned off; as a demonstration it
would have been more impressive for the reactor in its shipping
container to be visibly disconnected while operating.

The successful test should pave the way for further work at the
University of Bologna, and more contracts with the enigmatic
customer. NyTeknik did discover one possible clue to their
identity. The customer's controller, one Domenico Fioravanti,
apparently reports to a man whose title is "Colonel". This suggests
that the mystery customer might be DARPA, the Pentagon's extreme
science wing which, as Wired.co.uk has previously
noted, has expressed interestin Rossi's work -- but which might
not be quite ready to explain to its political masters why it spent
millions on a cold fusion device.

Plenty of mysteries remain. But the game just got a lot more
interesting.

Comments

'Do you support Rossi's claims?' should be 'Do you believe Rossi's claims?'

Adam LDN

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Adam LDN

This is maybe more important for the human race than the moonlanding.

Svein

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Svein

Almost anything would be more important than the moon landing.

Zedshort

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Svein

Why this isnt being blasted all over the msm is beyond me... Just shows you how controlled they are... This is really more important then the moonlanding! this is something that will benefit all of mankind.

Ryan

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to Svein

The article itself tells us that the results are inconclusive...

Mitch

Oct 30th 2011

Your poll is deeply flawed. You ask if we support his claims, and then give us only a binary response option. The correct answer is that it needs independent verification, and until this is absolutely confirmed as legit, nobody should have blind faith. It does seem promising and exciting, though.

publish and let others test it, or STFU

Oct 29th 2011

You don't need blind faith, you only need to do your own research into the background such as analysing all the previous test results, reading the original research papers from Piantelli and focardi going back to 1994 and listening to the scientists who have actually witnessed the tests, and done their own tests (rather than the armchair critics) and the conclusion is clear. This is real. Dozens of independent scientists have witnessed earlier tests and not one of them has said this is faked, fraud or is a mistake. Not one.

charles

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to charles

None of your mentioned scientists has replicated this! What remains is a wizardry show.

john

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to john

Prof. George Miley of University of Illiinois Champaigne-Urbana (UICU)says he has replicated a similar device by the late James Patterson. I have talked about the AP story with some of their people, and I really wonder if it will ever run.Why in God's name was the generator left running? What was it powering?

Joe Shea

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to john

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman...how many of you claim that scientist must be skeptical, must demand proof, yet believe the biggest lie of all---Evolution, which true science defeats? How did it rain on the rocks and and create a single living cell? How did that single cell know that two sexes must be created...and then create them? Be skeptical in all things.

GD McDaniel

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to john

It saddens me to see you don't know what evolution is. Or Abiogenesis. Or reproduction. Or science.How a person can go through life uncaring about what is true, I just can't imagine.

Jag

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to john

Be sad for someone else, (perhaps yourself) for I know exactly what evolution is.

GD McDaniel

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to john

Be sad for someone else, (perhaps yourself) for I know exactly what evolution is.

GD McDaniel

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to john

If you believe any scientific theory suggests that "it rained on the rocks and and created a single living cell," you do not know what science is.If you believe any scientific theory suggests that "that single cell knew that two sexes must be created...and then create them," you don't know what science is.Both of these claims are straw man arguments. No accepted scientific theory presents either of these claims, nor do either of theories you're parodying have anything to do with the theory of evolution. You're an ignorant tool, and I suggest you go read an actual biology book instead of the Answers in Genesis or Discovery Institute's websites.

Mike

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to john

If you believe any scientific theory suggests that "it rained on the rocks and and created a single living cell," you do not know what science is.If you believe any scientific theory suggests that "that single cell knew that two sexes must be created...and then create them," you don't know what science is.Both of these claims are straw man arguments. No accepted scientific theory presents either of these claims, nor do either of theories you're parodying have anything to do with the theory of evolution. You're an ignorant tool, and I suggest you go read an actual biology book instead of the Answers in Genesis or Discovery Institute's websites.

None of your mentioned scientists has replicated this! What remains is a wizardry show.

john

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to charles

This could also be a cruel and cynical scam because none of the tests actually verified the amount of energy produced. What the tests did was infer the amount of energy produced without accurately determining the amount of energy going into the system.

sculptor

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to charles

If the process is so straight forward - why almost twenty years of "development" Why not just say here it is here is a licensing -- go forth and make power.

Exboyracer

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to charles

Not one- Can confirm the process, not one can honestly attest to the veracity of the claims either. This is what a Hoax depends on also. Hoax aside, each step from the Laboratory table, the "Reactor" vessel gets larger, the number of units comprising the "unit" increase, the energy multiplier drops, the stated wholesale/retail costs rise. Now limitations are such as to be interpreted as possibley having ultimate temperatures limited without years more of experiintation.If not a hoax, kiss the tech goodbye.. but there should ultimately be an opportunity to see some investment scheme come along, where public investors can get in and out with a small margin, before the obvious hits home, boiling water does not cost a million dollars.

Mike D

Nov 1st 2011

Real power generators produce power. If the device is connected to a power supply, then it is a power consumer. I find this whole intermediate school kid "demo" efforts ridiculous. If your are talking about a 1MW power generator, than, why not turn the purported "output" to electricty and provide whatever cold-start power you need, without resort to an external power supply. These guys are nothing but confidence tricksters, probably holdign BS degrees in BSing only. Unfortunately, most of the internet readers are too young to remember countless such scams in history, dating back to 60's in LA for instance.

Serdar Erkan

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

Clap clap clap. Finally we found the best of us that in few text rows explayned all the mistery.

Andrea (not Rossi)

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Andrea (not Rossi)

I don't think that was a very brilliant analysis, did i miss something? I mean, fission reactors have powered systems attached to them, so do solar arrays and hydraulic dams. That, in and of itself, doesn't invalidate the test.I too am disappointed that the reactor wasn't run unplugged but "self-sustaining mode" was a recent development and a bonus, not the defining characteristic of the device which was "more output power than input". Hot fusion reactors are net power consumers but a lot of money is being spent on them and few people are calling it a scam.While people with more knowledge than myself remain in disagreement i'd say that the jury is still out. So at this point opining that it's certainly a scam is as wrongheaded as opining that it's an unmitigated success. If it is a confidence scam then so far it is the worst one in history, the reactor may appear to generate heat but it has yet to generate a large sum of money.

Joe McPlumber

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Andrea (not Rossi)

As far as i know, the ecat needs electricity to functions (computers and other electrical techicalities). The E-cat now doesn't produce electricity, but energy. Quite simple.

Nicola

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to Andrea (not Rossi)

Electricity is a form of energy. What it does is "produce" (technically, convert into) thermal energy. This can be converted again into electricity, which is how most power plants "produce" electricity. However, doing this final step is not hard, but simply an unnecessary burden at this stage in development. If I remember correctly (check wiki if you care) ITER will be disposing of its "generated" energy exactly the same way.This experiment was to proof that it can in fact produce more energy than the input. I don't care enough to search whether they actually published enough information to proof anything at all but if they did we would probably be discussing whether to build them, not whether they're a scam. The burden of proof (if they want to be taken seriously) is on Rossi and the mystery customer.

Steffen

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

If you think the E-Cat is a fraud, please do not use it in the future and stop bitching about it. Even if it generate twice the amount of energy, it is stills better what the current power company is producing. So all you non-believer should shut up and go away and let things move forward unless you truly like the current power situation.

Anonymous

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Anonymous

The mere fact you are calling us non-believers marks you as a pretty non-scientific guy.. scientists should be skeptical. That's how it works. We require independent verification too.

icomefromanon

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to Anonymous

I'll believe it when I see them in use.

sculptor

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

The diesel engine in my car is wired up to a starter motor, which in turn is wired up to a battery. That doesn't mean I have an electric car, but it does need electricity to get it started in the morning.However, everyone is missing the elephant in the room. Put a 470kW heater in a room, leave it on without a thermostat for 5.5 hours. It is going to get very very hot. After the 5.5 hours, I would expect to see charred smouldering remains, not the room pretty much as I left it that morning.

Jonathan

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

I do agree, if the unit is 100% efficient boiler of water..... 470,000 watts input over five hours should be detectable.

Gavin curtis

Nov 1st 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

You just violated the first law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a power "generator" as power is never created nor consumed.

Teslatech

Nov 7th 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

Even gas requires an outside source to start, your argument is worthless. Also, who cares, if you put in a million watts of power, and get back 1.5, 2, 3, 5 million watts, then who cares, at that point, you can turn off the outside source.

brad

Nov 8th 2011

In reply to Serdar Erkan

Now i am neither a blind follower or someone who immediately dismisses things i prefer to wait for all the evidence...But i must point out something that allot of you folks are missing, the only form of energy this thing produces is heat and it was measured by the amount of water boiled off. It was never connected to a dedicated turbine system (and i do mean system it would add a whole lot of bulk and complexity to a demo unit) so it could not generate electricity, therefore it HAD to be plugged in...Would the demo be better will a full turbine plant setup? Sure it would but not practical at the demo stage. As for power usage goes i too would like to know what they were drawing but that is very easy to check onsite and I'm sure their buyers (if their serious buyers that is) were watching it the whole time.

Mike G

Feb 15th 2012

In reply to Serdar Erkan

Then, oil, coal, water, or nuclear power should not work, according to your arguments. Since, all first require putting power into the system, and they drawn back out ... rain puts the energy into hydroelectric generators, fuel has put the energy into the coal, or oil (sun, nutrients, plants, etc.), and look at the power which if first expended in smelting, refining, gassing, processing the fuel for nuclear reactors! Not to mention the energy in first building the systems to be used ... just because the energy is being placed into the system at the time, POSSIBLY, more energy then input is drawn off, means nothing, in itself ...

Winston Court

Apr 19th 2012

In reply to Serdar Erkan

Then, oil, coal, water, or nuclear power should not work, according to your arguments. Since, all first require putting power into the system, and they drawn back out ... rain puts the energy into hydroelectric generators, fuel has put the energy into the coal, or oil (sun, nutrients, plants, etc.), and look at the power which if first expended in smelting, refining, gassing, processing the fuel for nuclear reactors! Not to mention the energy in first building the systems to be used ... just because the energy is being placed into the system at the time, POSSIBLY, more energy then input is drawn off, means nothing, in itself ...

Winston Court

Apr 19th 2012

To believe in the quoted figure of 470 kW power output, one has to take a lot of things at blind faith. Such as that essentially all water was vaporized, that the visible water leaks was negligible, that the electrical generator was not delivering any power during the experiment although it was still running etc.

Anon

Oct 29th 2011

Russia &amp; Saudi Arabia are doomed! Sweet!

Nicholas

Oct 29th 2011

Another successful test. The plausibility of fraud or self-deception is getting smaller and smaller. The next year will be very interesting -- can Rossi's devices work long-term, in a commercial setting? At that point even the harshest critics will have to throw up their hands and admit he really has something.I hope Rossi uses this money to hire some qualified mechanical engineers, whatever the physics of LENR the thing is a bit of a kludge from a mechanical perspective.

TallDave

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to TallDave

The probability of a true effect does not increase just because you repeat the same flawed experiment multiple times.

Anon

Oct 29th 2011

As it's well known, the catalyzer used by Andrea Rossi in his eCat is a secret, because he did not get yet the patent of his invention.Ony two men in the world know the Rossi's catalyzer used in his eCat: Guglinski and Andrea Rossi.It seems Guglinski predicted correctly the catalyzer used in Rossi's eCat in his paper "How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment".Look at their talk in the link of Rossi's blog:http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=462#commentsWladimir Guglinski July 14th, 2011 at 9:01 PM Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,as you decided do not publish in your blog my paper "How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment", then I will publish it in the Peswiki website.I think its publication in Peswiki will not cause any inconvenience to you.RegardsWLADIMIR GUGLINSKIAndrea Rossi July 15th, 2011 at 7:19 AM Dear Wladimir Guglinski:We have your paper in the list of articles to be published, it is just in line. Of course you can publish it where you want, can we publish it all the same when we will be ready, or you gave the copyright?We need again your authorization to publish.Warm Regards,A.R.Wladimir Guglinski July 15th, 2011 at 9:49 AM Dear Dr. Andrea RossiI did not give the copyright to Peswiki.I give my authorization to publish my paper "How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment" in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.RegardsWLADIMIR GUGLINSKIAndrea Rossi July 15th, 2011 at 10:17 AM Dear Wladimir Guglinski,Thank you very much, I read your paper and is very interesting, as well as all your work. I just can't push, but we will publish it.Warm Regards,AndreaWladimir Guglinski July 16th, 2011 at 8:10 AM Dear Dr. Andrea Rossiin my paper it's suggested the element to be the best catalyzer for your E-Cat.In the case the element suggested by my paper is the most important element used as catalyzer in your E-Cat, you can publish the paper with the following note:NOTE of the editor:Guglinski's paper suggests correctly the principal element used as catalyzer in the E-Cat.However, as Andrea Rossi did not get yet the patent for the E-Cat in USA, the element will not be revealed in the paper here published.Andrea Rossi July 16th, 2011 at 9:13 AM Dear Wladimir Guglinski,You are very good in this science and I am sure you are making very good things. I am sure you are among those who are or will be able to replicate my effect studying the patent.Warmest Regards, my friend. And a hug to Brazil!A.R.

pedrone

Oct 29th 2011

Systems such as this are now surprisingly urgent. A little recognized threat of a Solar Superstorm can collapse critical power grids for years according to NASA.See the Aesop Institute website to understand how and why.CHEAP GREEN on that site is devoted to Nickel Hydrogen systems such as Rossi.The Nickel in a 5 cent US coin can equal the energy in five barrels of oil.

Mark Goldes

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to Mark Goldes

Frauds like the ones you have advanced for decades are never urgent. The solar storm threat is solvable by the power companies purchasing DC blocking capacitors. They can and should do that without the government's help or prodding.

Rich Thorndike

Oct 30th 2011

"The customer's controller, one Domenico Fioravanti, apparently reports to a man whose title is "Colonel". This suggests that the mystery customer might be DARPA"Snake!? Snaaake!!! SNAAAAAAKE!!!!!

Faber

Oct 29th 2011

This article is completely nonsense. All of it is "Rossi says". So far, nobody knows who the mystery client is or even if such a client really exists. And nobody knows that anyone approved or paid for anything based on this test.You also failed to mention that a huge (appx 500 kW) diesel generator was present and running during the entire test. Why?You fr=urther failed to note that the test was completely unnecessary. It is easier and quicker and cheaper to test a single module rather than 50 at once as Rossi did. But it is much easier to hide non-nuclear sources of energy and other trickery such as energy storage devices in such a large (shipping container sized) machine.Rossi has now done more than a dozen tests over something like eight months. He has been told many times by qualified people that these tests lack proper calibration. They also lack a "blank" run (no hydrogen) to confirm that the measurement system works correctly. He has never corrected the deficiencies. In addition, the more tests he does, the less power per device he makes. Also, his runs are way too short. If this is a nuclear device, why run it for a few hours? Does someone have something more important to do? Why not run it for days or weeks?The tests were all done by Rossi and his people using his measuring equipment and his power sources. Unless Rossi provides independent measurement of his E-cat by credible people such as a university or government institution, this all remains nothing but "Rossi says" and it could easily be a scam. There are innumerable examples of such scams from the recent past, many of which have consumed millions of dollars or Euros from investors. Steorn of Ireland stands out (20 million Euros and nothing produced after 4 years of promises). All of the above should, in my opinion, have been included in your article. "Wired" deserves better quality and more critical thinking than this article! Some of us tend to depend on it. Please don't disappoint us with gullible writing like this!!

maryyugo

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to maryyugo

Famous maryyugo again.1.If customer is that stupid to buy a hoax for 2 million dollar so they deserved to be scammed, why you care. 2.and let say customer doesn't exist at all then we have a mad man named rossi that sold all hishis fortune and worked 16 hours daily for 9 month to make a fake device to fool you but you can not be fooled.again why you care.

arian

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to arian

Rossi may be following the typical scammer script like Steorn did. Scammers pretend that they are not taking money but in fact, investors often have more money than good sense and offer them secret deals. That's how 20 million Euros of investor money were completely wasted by investing in Steorn. Why would a large company buy leaky amateur-looking machines from Rossi when if they only bought the rights to the idea, they could do a much better job of research and development? Why is Rossi running 50 units in parallel using a huge diesel generator when a perfectly good test could be done on a single unit properly examined by independent researchers? What sort of business plan could the buyer possibly have for that bizarre collection of metal boxes and tubing?Why do I care? Because if Rossi is scamming, it will further degrade the public image of cold fusion research and legitimate workers will not be able to get grants. I also hate scammers on principle. They get people's hopes up for nothing, they waste talent and time checking them out, and they are simply thieving scumbags, no better than bank robbers and similar vermin. Or did you like Bernie Madoff much?

maryyugo

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to arian

you can not compare rossi with storen they were collecting money from beginning in various wayjust with creating false hope .anytime i remind of their argument about failed test and demonstration,i laugh involuntary.

arian

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to arian

If, if, and more ifs. If wishes were dollars we would all be rich. No one knows what Rossi has spent in time or money. And no one knows what Rossi has collected. Most importantly no one knows that Rossi's stories are any better than bed time tales. The smart money says this is all just another one of his schemes. If Rossi had the goods he would not have been rejected not once but twice already. If he had the goods he would have simply invited engineers working for interested customers to the plant he says has been running for years.

Rich Thorndike

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to arian

Why do we care? Because here we have a man who is claiming probably the Most importan scientific breakthrough in the last 100 years, and yet fails to carry out the simple experiments, in a controlled environment that would indicate its veracity.EPAInstead is stages a piece of elaborate theatre. It's extremely disappointing, and I presume Maryyugo was commenting to avoid the overly incredulous from believing that something important had been demonstrated here.

Chris

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to arian

No, maryyugo wants independent verification, which includes divulgence of the secret ingredient which is the only thing that Rossi has that will make him any money. One option is that maryyugo works for a competing entity that would just love to jump in and replicate this device if they could only pry the invention's secrets from Rossi's hands, but Rossi is too smart for that so maryyugo (unknown what gender this person is) continually harps and harps on the "need for replication". He/she takes the moral high road ("I just hate scammers") and he/she wants to appear like he/she's protecting everybody here but he/she completely FAILS to protect the one man who has put a pile of money and work into this along with his reputation on the line, namely ROSSI HIMSELF. Maryyugo has invested nothing!So go away, maryyugo. Some of us are onto your little game and find that what you're doing is a scam itself. In addition, you are no more interested in protecting anybody here (because I can safely say nobody here has invested a single cent in this enterprise) than you are in protecting yourself--for you have not invested anything in Rossi's enterprise (although with your absolute fixation on Steorn you must have spent your life's savings there). So it must be sour grapes; it must be payback from a stab-in-the-back you got from a prior bad experience (was it Steorn?); or it could be that you're working with Krivit to try to derail Rossi's efforts (or maybe the Saudis?). Good luck with that--Rossi sees you in the same light he sees Krivit, which isn't good. But, if it's any consolation, it's accurate.So again, maryyugo, go away. You are a false front.

Rockyspoon

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to arian

"No, maryyugo wants independent verification, which includes divulgence of the secret ingredient which is the only thing that Rossi has that will make him any money"C'mon. Rossi doesn't have to divulge his catalyst to prove that this system works, and right now we have no proof that this system works. No proof. Think about it.

JasonB

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to arian

How do you know that there exists a customer, and that they paid Rossi anything, let alone 2 million dollars?

0mega

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to arian

That's in easy one. I am normal. I look at people and their past like the Prof. Focardi, Levi or Stremmenos. If they as scientist with reputation and in old age say it is. It is like they say.

@propagare

Nov 2nd 2011

In reply to maryyugo

>So far, nobody knows who the mystery client is or even if such a client really exists.Good Frackin point - that possibility hadn't even occured to me! - The thing that makes tricks work is us assuming people wouldn't "go to all that trouble" just for a trick.>a huge (appx 500 kW) diesel generator was present and running during the entire test.I didn't know that either, maybe that's why they couldn't produce a whole megawatt then ;)Thanks for this info - I now think this is a deliberate scam and this is the "now pay me" bit.

Roger

Oct 31st 2011

Presumably by "evidently", you mean "according to Rossi". Otherwise the article is simply wrong.

Those who claim scam need to provide some plausible rationale as to why anyone would perform a scam in public. There simply is no plausible rationale, only illogical claims.

ramon leigh

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to ramon leigh

The usual motivation for scams is money. The money is provided by gullible investors, often in secret. While Rossi demonstrates his machines in public, most of the equipment, the power to run it, the measurement devices and the coolant and pumps all are supplied by him. Although public, the tests are not independent. And the tests are way too brief to demonstrate a nuclear source for the energy. It's possible that the tests are faked with hidden power sources, bad measurements, and sleight of hand or a combination of all of those. In fact it's likely.

maryyugo

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to maryyugo

False, maryyugo... Again, you're lying! The tests have been long enough to discount any other energy source other than some sort of nuclear reaction. I suggest you go up a ways and read the comment by pedrone wherein he discusses Rossi's comments regarding research by Wladimir Guglinski. And Wladimir Guglinski maintains it is a nuclear reaction--why, Wladimir has even discovered the element that comprises Rossi's "secret sauce".I'm getting tired of your constant misrepresentation of the facts, maryyugo. And I will continue to dog you until you leave--it doesn't matter how long it takes, for I have years and years, and I can spot a nefarious blogger a mile away. You were easy to spot months ago, and your tactics have not changed, nor do I expect they will change until you finally run out of steam (or money from your benefactor, whomever that might be).But everybody beware--maryyugo is constantly banned from other sites for her incessant, distortions, complaining, and illogical, evil diatribes that are laced with falsehoods while pretending to protect the science of LENR and everybody on this board. Nothing could be further from the truth. A long analysis of maryyugo's comments shows this person is not acting in your best interest, and more importantly, he/she is not acting in Rossi's best interest at all.It is all becoming rather comical to see Epic Fail in what maryyugo is doing.

Rockyspoon

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to maryyugo

You, my dear sir, have some serious issues.I don't know maryyugo, but what he says makes a lot of sense to any person capable of logic and deduction.

0mega

Oct 31st 2011

Believing in the whole Dr. Rossi's story is at this moment pure voluntarism. There is no evidence. If a self sustaining device (i.e. without external energy input) would be capable of lighting a tiny LED, it would be an energy revolution. Otherwise it is a scam.

alexvs

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to alexvs

No, alexvs, you have no more information to say it is a scam than I have of accusing you of having black hair, green eyes, and are 55 lbs overweight--all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You also say "there is no evidence", but again you are wrong. Also, it doesn't require the lighting of a tiny LED to be an energy revolution. It would be just as much an energy revolution to generate heat by making copper out of hydrogen and nickel. (You're not maryyugo's cousin or brother, are you?) And plenty of independent observers have verified that it generates plenty of heat (besides, if it were to light a tiny LED, you'd come up with some other excuse as to why it wasn't real). (I point this out just so everybody knows alexvs isn't interested in the truth--he's just here to see his own silly comments refuted by the likes of mine.)

Rockyspoon

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to Rockyspoon

Which independent observers have verified Rossi's experiments? With their own equipment?

0mega

Oct 31st 2011

In reply to Rockyspoon

i seriously hope your not serious in any of what your saying because if your not then you are my new favourite internet troll :D but if you are (which im guessing your not just by your gramma and constant mentioning that maryyugo is working for another evil company tryin to steal rossi's idea) then you really need to read up about Andre Rossi and all his other energy companies ;) because trust me this a scam on the major scale :L

(-(-_(-_-)_-)-)

Jul 4th 2012

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece

Daniele

Oct 29th 2011

Andre Rossi is named on 5 US patents and 3 published applications. None of the granted patents relate to a catalyst for producing heat from the interaction between hydrogen gas and nickel.Patent application 20110005506 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION however does address the use of an interaction between hydrogen gas and nickel. The claims of the application are below:1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150.degree. C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars. 2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen temperature varies in a range from 150 to 500.degree. C. 3. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said nickel powder is a nickel isotope powder. 4. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a pulsating pressure. 5. A method according to claims 1 and 2, characterized in that said hydrogen temperature is a variable temperature which varies in said range from 150 to 500.degree. C. 6. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said metal tube is a copper metal tube. 7. A modular apparatus for providing a hexothermal reaction by carrying out the method according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a metal tube (2) including a nanometric particle nickel powder (3) and a high temperature and pressure hydrogen gas. 8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used. 9. An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance, said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water and boron or only boron, said jacket (7) being encompassed by a further lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9), said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to prevent radiations emitted from said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also transforming said radiations into thermal energy. 10. An apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises, encompassing said nickel powder, hydrogen and electric resistance (101) containing copper tube (100) a first steel-boron armored construction (102) encompassed by a second lead armored construction (103) for protecting said copper tube (100), a hydrogen bottle connection assembly (106) and a hydrogen bottle (107), said apparatus further comprising, outside of said lead armored construction (103), a cooling water steel outer pipe assembly (105).Notice the description of the tube containing the nickel powder through which Hydrogen gas is introduced. Go to the Google patent (http://www.google.com/patents) site and you can read the PDF of the patent application. The USPTO web site has a section referred to as Public PAIRS where the file history of the patent application resides. Rossi's application while filed in the US on 09.16.2010, claims priority to an European patent dated 02.02.2003 with a publication number of EP-1-551-032-A1. The US patent is far from being granted at this point and if it is granted within the next 2 years it will be surprising. As far as him waiting for patent protection, he literally already has protection by the fact that the patent application is published. He also has the right to file continuation patents based on the current application which is a trick of Non Practicing Entities or more commonly known as Patent Trolls. Instead of mindless speculating about what the catalyst device Rossi has is, go read the patent application then criticize what he is doing. There is way too much arm chair and Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

Pat Price

Oct 29th 2011

Very good mister Rossi!Please visit www.fusioneafreddo.it!

marco

Oct 29th 2011

First off; Andrea Rossi is not a doctor, never said he was. He's an engineer. He has been working on the observations and research progress made by Drs. Focardi and Piantelli for the last 16 years.He never solicited money from anyone do build this. As a matter of fact, he would refuse anything offered to him, even contributions without strings attached. Instead he liquidated all his assets including his home in Florida for the necessary capital to self-finance this project.He simply announced that there would be a buyer for a 1 mW plant that he would have ready by the end of October. This is exactly what he accomplished yesterday.He is not interested in getting into a debate on how the device works, the theories behind it or the fact made by some that it simply cant work. He has his own theories on it. Instead of wasting valuable time sparing with the naysayers, skeptics and armchair scientists, he did what he intended to do - build a working energy plant.The revenue obtained from this will proved for his next phase. Unclear if it is to develop it to a device small enough for a residential home with not only thermal production but for electrical production.Time will reveal the next part.

coldfire

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to coldfire

I'm glad you pointed that out. Would a con-man really pour all his life savings into this project?Also Rossi had problems in the past with having his inventions funded by 3rd party members/companies. If say a big energy company bought his idea, they would probably just shelve it. If E-Cat becomes successful, especially if we all each have our own energy supplies, it would devastate the huge energy industries we have at the moment because we would all become off grid.

rino

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to rino

Magari

jjp

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to coldfire

It wouldn't be a very good con if it was obvious to everyone how he was running it. A good con man always gets the donor to think it was their idea to insist he take the money, and to agree not to make it public. Smart, eh?You just have to read a few of these forums to see how many people are ready to give him money (e-catworld has a few that are begging him to take their money). How do you know he accomplished a sale of a reactor, yesterday? All we know is that he says he accomplished such a sale. Isn't that what a good con man would say? And if he did accomplish such a sale, how do we know the buyer isn't one of the many gullible observers willing to give him whatever he says he doesn't want, so they are the first on the block with the "gold-mine", as someone here called it. A lot of speculators are probably prepared to risk a few million for such a big upside, even with second-rate assurance that it works. (Oh, and he's claiming a 1 MW reactor, though I think your 1 mW reactor is probably closer to the truth.)Finally, do you have a theory about what the dozen *public* demonstrations, and Rossi's daily activity on his blog are all about if, as you say, he is not interested in sparring with the public, or in persuading some of them that it works?

Joshua Cude

Oct 29th 2011

In reply to coldfire

Rossi has MOST DEFINITELY been taking money for this scam. Just because you are unaware of all the documents that are now posted on the internet that refute your constant shillery does not mean they don''t exist. Rossi is a con man. So easy to see through him it is funny. Enjoy.

The Tim Channel

Aug 3rd 2012

The buffet table had more substance than this latest dog and pony show that Rossi called a test.

Rich Thorndike

Oct 29th 2011

Please ask himself AFTER your read all the questions and his answers at:http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&amp;cpage=1#commentsUse your own brain. I know it's hard work and difficult as well as time intensive but don't depend on the MSM on that issue.Imho important links for your puzzle:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nURJGTEyNAg (Part 1 of 2)PS Esowatch are only professional skeptics, like the most of you. Yeah it's fun almost the whole time but not at an such important issue like this one. Kill your ego.Biased negativ (anyway a good start but very time intensive if you want to go all the way(s) and redflags back):http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-CatalyzerI am into it since the 14th of January 2011.

@propagare

Oct 29th 2011

"forwards?"

Anonymous

Oct 29th 2011

Just last week a UFO dropped a box full of ray guns at my doorstep. I had reporters from "I Want To Believe Digest" and "Aliens Are Among Us Weekly" over to verify it. They each had 3 minutes to examine the ray guns. but were unable to disassemble or touch them. However, they can enthusiastically report that the ray guns did indeed whir impressively and make very futuristic noises. Engineers from a super-secret anonymous mystery company that I contacted were also present and they attached all sorts of impressive monitoring apparatus to the ray guns and told the reporters that they were also very impressed with what they saw. In fact, the secret company was so impressed, they bought my box of ray guns for $2,000,000! I'm rich! Hopefully, the UFOs will bring more ray guns so I can sell them to a few more lucky investors.

Gar

Oct 30th 2011

Very disappointing. After Rossi spent all that time pretesting and said everything was testing ok. And what kind of customer would accept a product that was guaranteed for a megawatt (and if not meeting spec's Rossi would have 90 days to meet spec's). I would not accept a product such as this without operating for four or five days consecutively at nominal power. Maybe one that would like to get their hands on it and reverse engineer the product?.

Jimr

Oct 30th 2011

In response to the "nay sayers" BFs are soon forgotten.People rioted in London when electricity was introduced ---"The invisible Killer" it was called.The BFs of yesterday !! Still at it today --- I just love the people who can make judgements with NO information, relying on their own egos and PAST experiences.For the love of all the Gods,,, I wish I could make accurate judments on so little knowledge.Open your minds you lot of Sand Dwellers! Truth is always stranger than fiction. I bet you actually know the truth about Gravity!Mike 4 Ecat but against putting a device inside to stop replication.

Mike MacDonald

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to Mike MacDonald

Electricity is still called the invisible killer by organizations that lobby for improved safety (see www.electricity.ca/theinvisiblekiller/). It has nothing to do with whether people believe it's real or not. Even when it was introduced, everyone believed it was real. Likewise the luddites objected to progress because they were afraid of losing jobs, not because the technology was not believed. And it was not the scientists that were objecting. See the difference? In the case of the ecat, it is the scientists (in the main) who don't believe the claims are real. It's not that they're afraid of them. Indeed, it is hard to imagine anyone not wanting the claims to be true. As for people making judgements without information, that would be the unconditional believers. In the absence of evidence, the claims are unlikely, and with "NO information", there is no reason to change that view. On the other hand, with "NO information", believers lap it ip like hungry cats.

Joshua Cude

Oct 30th 2011

In reply to Joshua Cude

Like a lot of commenters here, I remain suspicious. The testing is not sufficiently rigorous.When you say "it's hard to imagine anyone not wanting the claims to be true", well, there are rather a lot of environmentalists who would be rabidly opposed. For them, giving people cheap, freely available energy is like giving a loaded gun to a baby. Environmentalists want to change the way we live - "protecting the environment" is just a smokescreen.